I read one possibility of how they might do the draft (can't remember where) is to take the team records over the last 3 years and do it that way. The Raptors still wouldn't get the first pick, but I believe they'd be in the top 5, again.

The NHL draft following the lockout was based on playoff appearances over the last three years, as well as first-overall picks. Had nothing to do with average wins. Basically, each team started with 3 balls, but lost one for every playoff appearance or first-overall selection during the previous three seasons.

The NHL draft following the lockout was based on playoff appearances over the last three years, as well as first-overall picks. Had nothing to do with average wins. Basically, each team started with 3 balls, but lost one for every playoff appearance or first-overall selection during the previous three seasons.

I like this better, but wouldn't Boston, Chicago, Orlando, Miami, San Antonio, Laker, Dallas, Oklahoma, Denver and Portland get no balls, because they've made the playoffs the last three years. That makes way more sense, to me.

Edit: And Cleveland would get zero, as well, since they have two playoff appearances and a #1 pick.

Screw the lottery and screw the NHL system. I hope we go the NFL system which is designed to make the worst team better by giving them the #1 pick. If you finish last you get #1 pick, if you win the superbowl you get the last pick if you lose the superbowl you get second last pick etc.

I like this better, but wouldn't Boston, Chicago, Orlando, Miami, San Antonio, Laker, Dallas, Oklahoma, Denver and Portland get no balls, because they've made the playoffs the last three years. That makes way more sense, to me.

Edit: And Cleveland would get zero, as well, since they have two playoff appearances and a #1 pick.

I should have noted, under the NHL approach, 1 ball was the minimum that any team could receive.

I like this better, but wouldn't Boston, Chicago, Orlando, Miami, San Antonio, Laker, Dallas, Oklahoma, Denver and Portland get no balls, because they've made the playoffs the last three years. That makes way more sense, to me.

Edit: And Cleveland would get zero, as well, since they have two playoff appearances and a #1 pick.

If Tim is right, then Toronto would have an 8.1% chance at the first overall pick.

EDIT: Ok, if every team gets one ball, then Toronto would have a 6.2% chance at the first overall pick.

I should have noted, under the NHL approach, 1 ball was the minimum that any team could receive.

I don't like that. If Miami, the Lakers, or one of the other perennial contenders got the #1 pick I would be pissed. And I'm guessing so would a lot of other fans. I don't know anything about hockey, but does one pick have as much of an impact in hockey as it does in the NHL?

I should have noted, under the NHL approach, 1 ball was the minimum that any team could receive.

I may be Canadian, but I would rather use the NFL approach than the NHL approach. And I'd use the total number of wins (regular season & playoffs) to determine the top 14 teams only, and their order!! THE REST OF THEM WOULD GET ZERO BALLS!!!

With rosters of only 12-13 players and two or three top players able to greatly determine the quality of a team, the NBA is much more sensitive to draft order, especially at the top, than the NHL or the NFL. So if the purpose is to promote some competitive parity then it would make sense to give greater weight to lower performing teams than either the NHL or the NFL do. So I like the idea of some assessment of performance over the past few years, but I would give higher odds than the NHL did to the lower ranked teams.

I don't like that. If Miami, the Lakers, or one of the other perennial contenders got the #1 pick I would be pissed. And I'm guessing so would a lot of other fans. I don't know anything about hockey, but does one pick have as much of an impact in hockey as it does in the NHL?

No. a single pick is much more influential in the NBA than in the other professional sports because rosters are smaller and a single player can transform a franchise. It could be a real problem for the competitive balance in the NBA if Miami were to get another transformative star through some lottery system.

If there is a season the Raps should try their damnedest to lose every single ball game, and trade for more picks. Dump salary. Trade everybody that's not going to be a free agent.

I'm a proponent of raising the draft age, but that screws the Raptors next year, so I'm torn. It's best for the league to raise the age limit, but best for the Raptors to keep it where it is.

There's no reason for an age limit. Great players dominate even at a very young age. Talent is what counts, not age, because NBA basketball is about athleticism more than anything else. The kind of precise mental mastery of the game that, for example, baseball requires, is not what basketball is about. Wasting years in college, where the coaches let the players do whatever they want, and they're turned into super-heroes who think they can't do any wrong, does not help their development.

If there had been an age limit in tennis (another sport that depends very heavily on athleticism), Boris Becker and Maria Sharapova wouldn't have won Wimbledon at 17. And Martina Hingis wouldn't have won the Australian Open at age 16. And the doubles title at Wimbledon at age 15. Hingis played professionally from ages 14-26, which coincides with a player's peak athletic years. The great Swedish player Bjorn Borg played professionally from ages 14-26 as well.

The league didn't introduce an age limit as a public service. They did it to spare nitwits like Jordan from embarrassing themselves by wasting picks on guys like Kwame Brown. Many players, TJ Fraud and Jose Calderon being two that come to mind immediately, find themselves ineffective when they hit their late 20s and that subtle spark of explosiveness they once had is gone. It's unfair to rob them of potential earnings when their skills are at their peak, as youngsters, just because of the western obsession with college.